Securing the State

To speak intelligently about security, or any subject for that matter, you first need to know the general definition of your subject. What is "security"? Well, let's work through this. What does it mean to be "secure"? What is a "secure America"?

Well, the obvious answer is that a secure America would be one with no immediate threats to her or her citizenry. But, there will always be threats, wont there? al-Qaeda will not likely be totally destroyed in the near or medium future, and when it is there will be some new threat to our homeland. Is it that the threat can be contained and managed? If so, then what should the focus of security policy be?

Further complicating things, is that AQ is just one example of one type of threat - a threat to our physical security, but not an existential threat at that. There are plenty other provinces of security -- fiscal security, climate security... At that rate, there would seem to be no bounds as to what "security" would entail.

To save you the further introspection on the issue, I will boil it down to a few simple bullet points. There are simply 3 major categories of security that should be included in any general discussion on national security.

1- Physical Security
2- Financial Security
3- Allied & Interest Security

The first is the physical security of the United States against lethal threats to the homeland, this encompasses terrorism, foreign military threats, network protection and resource protection. The second is protection against financial warfare and economic well being. Note that this is the protection of the international monetary and trading system from disruption. The third is foreign internal defense and allied actions, such as supporting Pakistan's military or conducting targeted assassinations. Let's boil this down even further. The primary goal of the United State's security policy should be the;

Protection of domestic assets from foreign or domestic terrorist attack
Protection of US Embassies and assets overseas from terrorist attack
Protection of the US from conventional foreign military threats
Protection of the US from irregular types of warfare (Network, NBC)
Assertion of US territorial sovereignty
Protection of International Monetary and Trading System
Protection of free trade and access to sea lanes and airspace
Protection of US Allied assets at request and US prerogative.

This should be the concern of the US government for security policy. Diseases, natural disasters and education are not security issues. By broadening the scope of national security so broadly, as NSS10 did, it does itself a disservice. Security isn't that broad, and while education is important, stupid people are not a threat to national security. There's a saying in the post 9/11 government that if you want funding, claim it relates to fighting terrorism or is critical to national security. Nobody cuts national security funding and nobody denies it. This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to the sprawling, massive and unwieldy monster of a security apparatus we have today. Those types of bloated bureaucracy are inefficient and often ineffective. Actually, come to think of it, that could be a threat to national security too...


*Disclaimer: Yes, things like disease, national debt, education and natural disasters can affect national security and they often do. But so does everything, if you define it broadly enough, everything is part of national security.